Water Resources Management

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 1781–1811

From Design to Application of a Decision-support System for Integrated River-basin Management

  • Jean-Luc de Kok
  • Sebastian Kofalk
  • Jürgen Berlekamp
  • Bernhard Hahn
  • Herman Wind
Open Access


During the last two decades several integrated tools have been developed to make the existing scientific knowledge available to river managers and assist them with the formulation and evaluation of alternative combinations of measures. Yet, few practical examples of embedding of these instruments in river management organizations can be observed so far. This paper identifies the possible organizational, technical, and scientific factors that may form an obstacle for the design and application of a Decision-Support System (DSS) for river-basin management by analyzing the interaction between the different participants in the Elbe DSS project. In particular attention is paid to the software engineering aspects of the design process. In order to start an integrated approach to deal with conflicting river strategies a project to develop a prototype tool for integrated management of the Elbe catchment was initiated, which includes functionalities related to inland navigation, water quality, flood safety, and vegetation ecology. The problems faced in the German part of the Elbe catchment range from poor navigation conditions and flooding vulnerability to a need to restore and maintain the natural state of the floodplains. Several river engineering works such as large-scale dike shifting, channel dredging, and large-scale retention are in a planning or implementation stage. From the beginning of the project onwards attention was paid to the involvement of potential end-users and key stakeholders in the design process. The experience of the project is that internal consistency of models and data, effective communication, and functional flexibility are essential to warrant a proper balance between scientific standards, the availability of models, and the requirements of users. This facilitates the design process and improves the chance of successful implementation.


Decision-support system Elbe River-basin management System design Model integration Appropriate modeling 


  1. Barrow CJ (1998) River basin development planning and management: a critical review. World Dev 26(1):171–186. doi:10.1016/s0305750X(97)100171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker A, Klöcking B, Lahmer W, Pfützner B (2002) The hydrological modelling system ARC/EGMO. In: Singh VP, Frevert DK (eds) Mathematical models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources, Littleton/Colorado, pp 321–384Google Scholar
  3. Behrendt H, Huber P, Opitz D, Schmoll O, Schmoll R, Uebe R (1999) Nährstoffbilanzierung der Flussgebiete Deutschlands (Nutrient balances of the German catchments), UBA-Texte 75/99, Berlin (in German)Google Scholar
  4. Berlekamp J, Boer S, Graf N, Hahn B, Holzhauer H, Huang Y et al (2005) Aufbau eines Pilot-Decision Support Systems (DSS) zum Flusseinzugsgebietsmanagement am Beispiel der Elbe. Abschlussbericht (Design of a pilot decision-support system for river-basin management with the Elbe river as example—Final report), Mitteilung Nr. 10 Projektgruppe Elbe-Ökologie. Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany. http://elise.bafg.de/?3283
  5. Berlekamp J, Lautenbach S, Graf N, Reimer S, Matthies M (2007) Integration of MONERIS and GREAT-ER in the decision-support system for the Elbe river basin. Environ Model Softw 22(2):239–247. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BKG (2003) Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (BKG) Digitales Geländemodell 1:25.000 des Elbegebietes-Digital terrain model 1:25.000 of the Elbe river basin, on CD-ROM.-ATKIS* DGM25-D-V, Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy, Modified by the Federal Institute of Hydrology, Frankfurt. http://www.bkg.bund.de
  7. Boehm BW, Belz FC (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer 21(5):61–72Google Scholar
  8. Borowski I, Hare M (2007) Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resour Manage 21:1049–1074. doi:10.1007/s112690069098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bröhl AP, Dröschel W (1995) Das V Modell (The V Model), 2nd edn. Oldenbourg, München-Wien. (in German)Google Scholar
  10. Brugnach M, Tagg A, Keil F, De Lange W (2007) Uncertainty matters: computer models at the science–policy interface. Water Resour Manage 21:1075–1090. doi:10.1007/s112690069099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calewaert JB, Maes F, Lymberry G, Engelen G, Van Lancker V, Vanaverbeke J et al (2007) Chapter 7: conclusions and recommendations. In: Calewaert JB, Maes F (eds) Science and sustainable management of the north sea: Belgian case studies. Academic, Gent, Belgium, pp 251–305Google Scholar
  12. Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (2007) Integrated planning procedure for decision making in water resource systems. In: Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (eds) Topics on system analysis and integrated water resource management. Elsevier, pp 3–23Google Scholar
  13. Castelletti A, Cellina F, Soncini-Sessa R, Weber E (2007) Comprehensive testing and application of the PIP procedure: the Verbano project case study. In: Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (eds) Topics on system analysis and integrated water resource management. Elsevier, pp 223–241Google Scholar
  14. Cohen D, Lindvall M, Costa P (2004) An introduction to agile methods. In: Advances in computers. Elsevier, New York, pp 1–66Google Scholar
  15. Crinnion J (1991) Evolutionary systems development, a practical guide to use of prototyping within a structured systems methodology. PlenumGoogle Scholar
  16. De Kok JL, Booij MJ (2008) Deterministic-statistical model coupling in a DSS for river-basin management, Environ Model Assess (available online). doi:10.1007/s1066600891617
  17. De Kok JL, Holzhauer H (2004) Pitfalls and challenges in the design and application of decision support systems for integrated river-basin management. In: Möltgen J, Petri D (eds) Interdisziplinäre Methoden des Flussgebiets-managements, Münster, IFGI Prints 21. Institut für Geoinformatik, Münster, Germany, pp 97–104, 15–16 March 20Google Scholar
  18. De Kok JL, Huang Y (2005) Assessment of flood risk at various scales: the Elbe prototype DSS. In: Van Alphen J, Van Beek E, Taal M (eds) Third international symposium on flood defence, Nijmegen, Floods, from defence to management. Symposium papers. Balkema, Leiden, pp 129–135, 25–27 May 2005Google Scholar
  19. De Kok JL, Wind HG (2002) Rapid assessment of water systems based on internal consistency. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 128(4):240–247. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2002)128:4(240) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Kok JL, Wind HG (2003) Design and application of decision-support systems for integrated water management: lessons to be learnt. Phys Chem Earth Pt B 28(14–15):571–578. doi:10.1016/S1474-7065(03)00103-7 Google Scholar
  21. De Kort IAT, Booij MJ (2007) Decision making under uncertainty in a decision support system for the Red River. Environ Model Softw 22(2):128–136. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Leeuw ACJ (1974) Systeemleer en organisatiekunde: een onderzoek naar de mogelijke bijdragen van de systeemleer tot een integrale organisatiekunde (Systems-and organizational science: an investigation of the potential contributions of systems science to an integrated organizational science). Stenfert-Kroese, Leiden, The Netherlands (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  23. Dietrich J, Schumann AH, Lotov AV (2007) Workflow orient. Participatory decision support for integrated river basin planning. In: Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (eds) Topics on system analysis and integrated water resource management. Elsevier, pp 207–221Google Scholar
  24. Downs PW, Gregory KJ, Brookes A (1991) How integrated is river basin management? Environ Manage 15(3):299–309. doi:10.1007/BF02393876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EEA (2002) European Environment Agency, CORINE Land cover database. Retrieved http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice
  26. EU (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm
  27. EU (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327, 1–72. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html
  28. Fayad ME, Schmidt DC, Johnson RE (1999) Building application frameworks: object-oriented foundations of framework design. WileyGoogle Scholar
  29. Fröhlich W (1998) Auswertung der mit dem ELBA-Programsystem berechneten Wasserstandsvorhersagen vom Zeitraum August 1995 bis Dezember 1997 (Evaluation of the water level predictions calculated with the ELBA program system for the period August 1995–December 1997), German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Giupponi C (2007) Decision-support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: the MULINO approach. Environ Model Softw 22:248–258. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giupponi C, Mysiak J, Fassio A, Cogan V (2004) MULINO-DSS: a computer tool for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale. Math Comput Simul 64:13–24. doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2003.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giupponi C, Mysiak J, Depietri Y, Tamaro M (2007) Harmoni-CA synthesis report. Decision support systems for water resources management: current state and guidelines for tool development IWA London, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Gourbesville P (2008) Integrated river basin management, ICT and DSS: challenges and needs. Phys Chem Earth 33:312–321. doi:10.1016/j./pce.2008.02.007 Google Scholar
  34. Gruber B, Kofalk S (2001) The Elbe-Contribution of the IKSE and of several research programmes to the protection of an unique riverscape. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) Bulletin No. 106:35–47. http://elise.bafg.de/?3535
  35. HAD (2000) Hydrologischer Atlas von Deutschland (Hydrological Atlas of Germany), Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (ed), 2nd edn. Berlin, Germany. http://had.bafg.de:8080
  36. Hahn B, Engelen G (2000) Concepts of DSS systems. In: Decision Support Systems (DSS) for river basin management, International workshop 6 April 2000. Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz-Berlin, pp 9–44Google Scholar
  37. Hattermann FF, Gömann H, Conradt T, Kaltofen M, Kreins P, Wechsung F (2007) Impacts of global change on water-related sectors and society in a trans-boundary central European river basin. Part 1: project framework and impacts on agriculture. In: Lindenschmidt KE (ed) Large-scale hydrological modelling and the European Union water policies. Advances in Geosciences 11:85–92. http://www.adv-geosci.net/11/85/2007/
  38. Helms M, Büchele B, Merkel U, Ihringer J (2002) Statistical analysis of the flood situation and assessment of the impact of diking measures along the Elbe (Labe) river. J Hydrol (Amst) 267(1–2):94–114. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00143-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Henrichsmeier W, Cypris C, Löhe W, Meudt M, Sander R, Von Sothen F et al (1996) Entwicklung eines gesamtdeutches Agrarsektorenmodells RAUMIS 96 (Development of a German agricultural sector model RAUMIS 96), Final document of a cooperation project, Bonn/Braunschweig-Völkenrode (in German)Google Scholar
  40. Hoekstra AY (2005) Generalisme als specialisme: Waterbeheer in de context van duurzame ontwikkeling, globalisering, onzekerheden en risico’s (Generalism as specialism: Water management in the context of sustainable development, globalization, uncertainties and risks). Inaugural address, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. http://www.wem.ctw.utwente.nl/organisatie//Medewerkers/medewerkers/hoekstra/Oratie%20Hoekstra
  41. Hostmann M, Borsuk M, Reichert P, Truffer B (2005) Stakeholder values in decision support for river rehabilitations. In: Buijse AD, Klijn F, Leuven RSEW, Middelkoop H, Schiemer F, Thorp JH, Wolfert HP (eds) Rehabilitating large regulated rivers Lowland River Rehabilitation Conference, Wageningen, September 29–October 3, 2003. Archiv für Hydrobiologie (Fundamentals of Applied Limnology) 155(1–4). Suppl Large Rivers 15. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp 491–505Google Scholar
  42. IKSE (2004) Aktionsplan Hochwasserschutz (Actionplan for flood protection). International Committee for Protection of the Elbe River (IKSE), Magdeburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Janssen MA, Goossen H, Omtzigt N (2006) A simple mediation and negotiation support tool for water management in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 78:71–84. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kersebaum KC, Beblik AJ (2001) Performance of a nitrogen dynamics model applied to evaluate agricultural management practices. In: Shaffer M, Ma L, Hansen S (eds) Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soil management. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 549–569Google Scholar
  45. Kruchten P (2004) The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison-Wesley object-technology series, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  46. Krysanova V, Müller-Wohlfeil DI, Becker A (1998) Development and test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water quality model for mesoscale watersheds. Ecol Modell 106(2–3):261–289. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00204-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krysanova V, Bronstert A, Müller-Wohlfeil DI (1999) Modelling river discharge for large drainage basins: from lumped to distributed approach. Hydrol Sci J 44(2):313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kunkel R, Wendland F (2002) The GROWA98 model for water balance analysis in large river basins—the river Elbe case study. J Hydrol (Amst) 259:152–162. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00579-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lahmer W, Becker A, Müller-Wohlfeil DI, Pfützner B (1999) A GIS-based approach for regional hydrological modelling. In: Diekkrüger B, Kirkby MJ, Schröder U (eds) Regionalization in Hydrology. International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) publication no. 254, pp 33–43Google Scholar
  50. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 40:191–204. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loucks DP (1995) Developing and implementing a decision-support system: a critique and a challenge. Water Resour Bull 31(4):571–582Google Scholar
  52. Ludwig R, Mauers W, Niemeyer S, Colgran A, Stolz R, Escher-Vetter H et al (2003) Web-based modelling of energy, water and matter fluxes to support decision making in mesoscale catchments—the integrative perspective of GLOWA-Danube. Phys Chem Earth 28:621–634. http://www.glowa.org Google Scholar
  53. Matthies M, Berlekamp J (2006) System analysis for water quality management for the Elbe river basin. Environ Model Softw 21(9):1309–1318. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.04.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Matthies M, Berlekamp J, Koormann F, Wagner JO (2001) Georeferenced regional simulation and aquatic exposure assessment. Water Sci Technol 43(7):231–238Google Scholar
  55. Maurel P, Craps M, Cernesson F, Raymond R, Valkering P, Ferrand N (2007) Concepts and methods for analysing the role of Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) in social learning processes for river basin management. Environ Model Softw 22(5):630–639. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miser HJ, Quade ES (1985) Handbook of systems analysis: overview of uses, procedures, and applications, and practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  57. Möltgen J, Petry D (eds) (2004) Interdisziplinäre Methoden des Flussgebietsmanagements (Interdisciplinary Methods of River Basin Management). Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Geoinformatik der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Workshopbeiträge 15.–16. März 2004, Band 21, S. 1–10, Münster, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  58. Morton MSS (1971) Management decision systems: computer-based support for decision making. Harvard Business School Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. Moss T (2004) The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU water framework directive. Land Use Policy 21:85–94. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mysiak J, Giupponi C, Rosato P (2005) Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management. Environ Model Softw 20:203–214. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olsson JA, Andersson L (2007) Possibilities and problems with the use of models as a communication tool in water resource management. Water Resour Manage 21:97–110. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9043-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Open MI (2008) http://www.openmi.org
  63. Otte-Witte K, Adam K, Meon G, Rathke K (2002) Hydraulisch–morphologische Charakteristika entlang der Elbe (Hydraulic–morphological characteristics along the Elbe river. In: Nestmann F, Büchele B (eds) Morphodynamik der Elbe, Endbericht des Verbundprojekts (Morphodynamics of the Elbe river—final project report). Institute of Water Resources Management, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 203–299Google Scholar
  64. Refsgaard JC, Henriksen HJ, Harrar WG, Scholten H, Kassahun A (2005) Quality assurance in model based water management-review of existing practice and outline of new approaches. Environ Model Softw 20:1201–1215. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reiner B, Hahn K, Höfling G (2002) Hierarchical storage support and management for large-scale multidimensional array database management systems. In: Hameurlain A, Cicchetti R, Traunmüller R (eds) DEXA: 13th international work-shop on database and expert systems applications, Aix-en-Provence, 2–6 Sep-tember 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2453. Springer, London, pp 689–700Google Scholar
  66. Royce W (1970) Managing the development of large software systems, Proc. IEEE WESCON 26, 1–9. http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf
  67. Schielen RMJ, Gijsbers PJA (2003) DSS-large rivers: developing a DSS under changing societal requirements. Phys Chem Earth Pt B 28(14–15):635–645. doi:10.1016/S1474-7065(03)00109-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scholten M, Anlauf A, Büchele B, Faulhaber P, Henle K, Kofalk S et al (2005) The river Elbe in Germany—present state, conflicting goals, and perspectives of rehabilitation. In: Buijse AD, Klijn F, Leuven RSEW, Middelkoop H, Schiemer F, Thorp JH, Wolfert HP (eds) Rehabilitating large regulated rivers Lowland River Rehabilitation Conference, Wageningen, September 29–October 3, 2003. Archiv für Hydrobiologie (Funda-mentals of Applied Limnology) 155(1–4). Suppl Large Rivers 15. E Schweizerbart Science Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 579–602Google Scholar
  69. Scholten H, Kassahun A, Refsgaard JC, Kargas T, Gavardinas C, Beulens A (2007) A methodology to support multidisciplinary model-based water management. Environ Modell Softw 22:743–759. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.025. http://HarmoniQua.org CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scrase JI, Sheate WR (2002) Integration and integrated approaches for assessment: what do they mean for the environment? J Environ Plann 4:275, 294Google Scholar
  71. Sprague RH, Carlson ED (1982) Building effective decision support systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  72. Ubbels A, Verhallen AJM (2000) Suitability of decision support tools for collaborative planning processes in water resources management. RIZA report 99.067. Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/rws/riza/home/publicaties/ Google Scholar
  73. Uran O, Janssen R (2003) Why are spatial decision-support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Comput Environ Urban 27:511–625. doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(02)00064-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. USACE (1982) HEC-2: water surface profiles, user’s manual. CPD2A, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Delden H (2000) A generic approach for the design of decision support systems for river basin management, MSc thesis. University of Twente, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Schijndel SAH (2005) The planning kit, a decision making tool for the Rhine branches. In: Van Alphen J, Van Beek E, Taal M (eds) Third international symposium on flood defence, Nijmegen, 25–27 May 2005. Floods, from defence to management. Symposium papers. Balkema, Leiden, pp 763–769. http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/intro/innovation.html{#}planning-kit
  77. Van Waveren RH, Groot S, Scholten H, Van Geer F, Wösten H, Koeze R et al (1999) Good modelling practice handbook. Foundation for applied water research (STOWA) Report 99-05. Dutch Department of Public Works, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) Report 99-036. http://informatics.wur.nl/research{%}20projects/pub-pdf/gmp.pdf
  78. Verbeek M, Van Delden H, Wind HG, De Kok JL (2000) Towards a generic tool for river basin management—problem definition report—phase 1. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany. http://elise.bafg.de Google Scholar
  79. Verbeek M, Wind HG (2001) Improving control in water management, meeting conditions for control with the ISI-approach. Water Resour Manag 15:403–421. doi:10.1023/A:1015560322043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vinhas L, De Souza RCM, Câmara G (2003) Image Data Handling in Spatial Databases. Paper presented at the 5th Brazilian Symposium on GeoInformatics, GeoInfo2003. Campos do Jordão, São Paulo, Brazil, 3–5 November 2003Google Scholar
  81. Volk M, Hirschfeld J, Schmidt G, Bohn C, Dehnhardt A, Liersch S et al (2007) A SDSS-based ecological–economic modelling approach for integrated river basin management on different scale levels—the project FLUMAGIS. Water Resour Manage 21:2049–2461. doi:10.1007/s112690079158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walker DH (2002) Decision support, learning and rural resource management. Agric Syst 73:113–127. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00103-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Westmacott S (2001) Developing decision support systems for integrated coastal management in the tropics: is the ICM decision-making environment too complex for the development of a useable and useful DSS? J Environ Manage 62:55–74. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Xu Y, Mynett AE (2006) Application of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in river basin management. Water Sci Technol 53(1):41–49. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zeigler BP, Praehofer H, Kim TG (2000) Theory of modeling and simulation. Elsevier, USAGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhu X, Dale AP (2000) Identifying opportunities for decision support systems in support of regional resource use planning: an approach through soft systems methodology. Environ Manage 26(4):371–384. doi:10.1007/s002670010094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Luc de Kok
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sebastian Kofalk
    • 3
  • Jürgen Berlekamp
    • 4
  • Bernhard Hahn
    • 5
  • Herman Wind
    • 6
  1. 1.Unit Spatial Environmental ModellingFlemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO)MolBelgium
  2. 2.Water Engineering & Management GroupUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)KoblenzGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental Systems Research, Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  5. 5.Research Institute of Knowledge SystemsMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.InframMarknesseThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations